In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take your (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390

In that film, the writer chose to pull his editorial in the interest of self-preservation. Had he done the right thing - after doing the wrong thing - Stillson would not have been able to take his heinous plan for the world (nuclear war) all the way to the Oval Office. The writer chose to commit two wrongs to make things right - for himself. Any inkling he may have had to do what he knew should have been done was extinguished with a threat of bodily harm.

An NSA whistleblower named Russ Tice has come forward with explosive charges that the NSA has been targeting top officials in the U.S. Government and Military with warrantless wiretapping. While talking with Peter B. Collins, Tice spoke adamantly about how he held the paperwork that ordered such tapping of then Senator Barack Obama in 2004 and "One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court..."

Perhaps one of the most compelling moments in the exchange between Tice and Collins at the 2:20 mark:

Collins: This creates the basis, and the potential for massive blackmail.

Tice: Absolutely!

Here is the audio of Tice revealing what he knows to Collins, via WashingtonsBlog:

Conspiracy theories about blackmail get much closer to becoming conspiracy realities when you have corroborating evidence that demonstrates blackmail being done in the past. In this case, we don't just have a whistleblower. We also have the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was forced to resign over an extra-marital affair that the Department of Justice had known about for months prior to the election, and General John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who was implicated in the scandal as well but was neither disgraced or forced out. Both men had previously made public statements decrying desecration of the Qur'an.

Indications are that Petraeus was punished for not playing ball on the Benghazi talking points. We now know that he said the following about the revised talking points in an email one day before Susan Rice lied to Americans five times on the Sunday shows:

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this."

On his birthday - November 7th - one day after the 2012 election, Petraeus was summoned to the White House by his boss - James Clapper - and forced to resign. Two days later - on Friday, November 9th, he publicly did so and the reason for that resignation was made public; it was his extra-marital affair.

It's easy to forget how blatantly obvious the blackmail was in the case of Petraeus. Here is Charles Krauthammer on 9/13/12. The only thing Krauthammer may have gotten wrong here is the part about Petraeus' September 13th testimony. In hindsight, it's more likely that the aforementioned email from Petraeus in which he wanted out of the talking points sandbox, served as the impetus for the affair being revealed:

Such rock solid evidence that the CIA Director was blackmailed by the Obama administration cannot and should not be dismissed. It is stronger than anecdotal evidence. It is proof of criminal behavior that is being reported by a whistleblower.

Were those congressmen blackmailed? Hard to say and there's no direct evidence. Besides, they're Democrats and Democrats always unite in the end. In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats had the votes to overcome a filibuster - until Ted Kennedy died. They got around the subsequent lack of a filibuster-proof majority by using reconciliation and had a Democratic majority in the House; the administration didn't need to target Republicans; the arm-twisting was all internecine.

In 2013, Obama wants Immigration Reform just as badly - if not more so. The problem for him is that Republicans hold the House and the filibuster-proof majority is long gone in the Senate (only 54 Senators caucus with the Democrats). What the administration did to the aforementioned Democrats during the 2010 Obamacare votes must somehow be done to Republicans in the 2013 Immigration debate.

Arm-twisting to get behind the Party of the President is anathema to the opposition Party. For Obama to get done with immigration now, what he got done with Obamacare then, would almost necessarily require blackmail.

When you couple what happened to Petraeus with what NSA whistleblower Tice is alleging, can you think of a better explanation for why Republicans are so aggressively pushing a suicidal agenda for their own Party?

Can you think of a better explanation for why they're doing it for a scandal-ridden administration?

Shouldn't Republicans in both the House and the Senate be focusing on something like, gee, I don't know... The IRS Scandal, perhaps?

The IRS was attempting to do what immigration reform will do - create one-Party rule in America.